Andre, Also, I really have my doubts as to MoQ making better scientific explainations, it is certainly more inclusive of the total human experience in "metaphysical" terms, but even this term is rendered obsolete by its conceptual understanding. There is no "meta" in experience. If anything MoQ throws the "M" out alltogether. Now Bo will trot out the literal quote from Pirsig as papal law that everyone must have a metaphysics, but this is a literal misinterpretation, everyone operates under an explaination of experience, but the term Meta-physic as commonly understood is the axioms for the operations of physics. Quantum theory has all but destroyed this notion in fact, MoQ destroys the very notion of "Meta-physics " it is THE static assumption it attacks the most.
-Ron ________________________________ From: X Acto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 9:06:43 AM Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy. Andre, I do not argue that point with Platt and Bo, what I do argue is that Bo posits that s/o is THE human intellectual level, absolutely. Per western culture, it certainly dominates, but as a species? it leaves out all sorts of intellectual cultures and patterns. It makes the mistake of posing a culturally chauvanistic world view in evolutionary terms, dangerous in my opinion. The intellectual level is defined by the culture it emerges from it is as all MoQ concepts, contextual. -Ron ________________________________ From: Andre Broersen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 4:21:36 AM Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy. Ron to Krimel: 'I don't believe MoQ "rejects" SOM just the assumptions of absolutes it tends to be predicated on.' Andre: Yes, Ron, you are correct. The MoQ does not reject a subject/object (scientific) analysis/investigation, because his has proven to be incredibly useful. But the MoQ does reject the 'M' part i.e that subjects and objects constitute reality AND THAT THAT IS THE WHOLE OF REALITY.. This is what Bodvar and Platt have been saying all along. A subject/object approach is useful in certain circumstances, depending on what you want to do, what you are investigating/ interpreting.Similar to the analogy Pirsig uses in Lila: 'A map with the North Pole at the center is confusing at first, but it's every bit as correct as a Mercator map. In the Arctic its the only map to have.... . The Metaphysics of Quality can explain subject-object relationships beautifully but...a subject-object metaphysics can't explain values worth a damn'' . That is why the MoQ 'provides a better set of coordinates with which to interpret the world than does a subject-object metaphysics because it is more inclusive. It explains more of the world and it explains it better. (Lila p103). And the latter refers to the 'M' part of course. For what it is worth. Andre Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists..moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
